Mr. Santorum says he was caught in “a meltdown year” for Republicans...

It was 2006.

But if the climate was harsh, Mr. Santorum was part of it. Always brash, he had become a more rancorous figure since he last faced the voters in 2000. He was No. 3 in his party’s leadership and responsible for its messaging, which often meant either defending Mr. Bush or going on the attack.

And he took high-visibility roles on divisive issues, including abortion, homosexuality and the right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo....

The voters to whom he is appealing this year — mainly conservatives and evangelical Christians — are the same core voters he appealed to in Pennsylvania. But in 2006, they were a minority in the state’s general election; now they dominate the Republican primaries. And they are drawn to Mr. Santorum’s moral certitude, his fire-and-brimstone passion, his pugilistic posture of never giving up and never giving in.

What bothers me is how the non-smoking, non-drinking, tithe paying, 40 year marriage, non-adultery, regular church attending candidate -

the one who has actually had large jobs in the private sector, who has always spent less than he had, has guarded well the funds of others, has carefully invested only where it has high probability of paying a return -

that this guy is labeled the RINO, the untrustworthy conservative is complete nonsense.

The reason that Santorum lost is not because of social conservativism, but because the Democrat that ran against him ran as strongly PRO-LIFE. Pennsylvania voters felt comfortable voting for the Democrat because the Democrat portrayed himself as a social conservative.

I think he would be beat up on as a social conservative. I'm not sure that's an entirely winning issue for the Dems. They've just had 2 weeks to roll over the R's on the BCP issue and Obama's ratings have dropped 9 points. The larger issue of stability in marriage which may at the margin be affected by the symbol of 'free' BCP, or other government policies, will override it. He is a team player who has dealt with, as he said, 'the poor retirees who stayed in Pennsylvania.' He perhaps also would not be out of touch by being rich for so long that he would not know the impact of not funding Planed Parenthood. Romney said he would cut funding for that, thanks Ann.

What disturbs me is that Santorum is running as the blatant religious conservative and he's slowing down Romney and thus making it easier for Obama by having a weakened opponent. Santorum is not a loyal Republican IMHO. This proves that he's in it strictly for himself and not the country. Oh and fuck you religious conservatives, fuck you all.

Why did Santorum lose the Senate race to Bob Casey? Well, just consider these words of such an extremist --

"My Catholic faith and the values reflected in that faith have always had a profound impact on me as a person and as a public official. I try to live up to the teachings of my faith in my personal life and in my public life."

"Most American people recognize [the right to privacy] to some degree or another, and I think that some privacy-related court decisions... are correct. But let me add that I do draw a line. The right to privacy does not trump the right of the unborn."

Questionnaire that asked: What is your position on government requiring that benefits be provided to same sex partners?Response: "Oppose"

Questionnaire: What is your position on legislation allowing homosexuals to adopt children?Response: "Oppose"

On Congressional intervention in the Terry Schiavo Case:"I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate."

"I don't oppose [public displays of the Ten Commandments]. I do think politicians spend a lot more time talking about that question than trying to live the 10 Comandments. No matter what your religious beliefs, there are some universal truths in those commandments that we all ought to live by."

(by the way, the extremist I meant was Bob Casey, who is the one who said these things)

I live in Illinois and I'm voting for Romney in the primary, so we can get rid of Obama.

He's our only hope Obi-Wan.

That is such nonsense - repeat after me:

ANYONE CAN BEAT OBAMA NOW.

This only-Romney bullshit is all that's propelling him and it reveals two things:

1) Conservatives are delusional scaredy cats.

2) They're not scared enough of what Romney represents - which is something even worse than Obama in the long run. Why? Because unlike GodZero and the like, the cult of Mormonism isn't going anywhere. Giving them more power is nothing but trouble - trouble none of you wants to think about in favor of nice facades and empty phrases - which is EXACTLY what got us Obama.

To, me, question # 1 is "who can beat Obama?". Nothing else matters. I think all Republican candidates would do a better job of running our country. So, while I would vote for Santorum if he is the nominee, I think his focus on social issues makes him too polarizing to win a national election. Romney has his faults but I think he is best positioned to win the independents who will determine the outcome. And when faced with a decision of Obama vs Romney, conservatives would be nuts not to support Romney.

I think his focus on social issues makes him too polarizing to win a national election

Santorum is MUCH LESS focused on social issues than are those determined to be opposed to him. It is they who are obsessed with them. It is the people who are going around looking for excuses to oppose him that are so focused on this.

Anything that Santorum has said on these matters is merely in response to others seeking to impose their radical and extreme social ideologies on everyone. That he has not run away and cowered under his bed in the face of what has become a culture war, with Dems now launching nuclear missiles, unlike too much of the country, but has confronted such assaults, is to be admired.

Santorum has done nothing to divide or otherwise polarize people. He has not sought to pit one group against another -- which is what Dems do on a daily basis. That people have chosen to oppose him does not make him the polarizing figure -- it is those opponents who have engaged in polarization.

"...Our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party. I mean, the incentives seem to be set up to allow people — as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money."

Or gain the presidency. Romney's "inevitability" is making it clear the two parties are pretty evenly split on that.

Santorum is MUCH LESS focused on social issues than are those determined to be opposed to him. It is they who are obsessed with them. It is the people who are going around looking for excuses to oppose him that are so focused on this.

Anything that Santorum has said on these matters is merely in response to others seeking to impose their radical and extreme social ideologies on everyone. That he has not run away and cowered under his bed in the face of what has become a culture war, with Dems now launching nuclear missiles, unlike too much of the country, but has confronted such assaults, is to be admired.

Santorum has done nothing to divide or otherwise polarize people. He has not sought to pit one group against another -- which is what Dems do on a daily basis. That people have chosen to oppose him does not make him the polarizing figure -- it is those opponents who have engaged in polarization.

Bender has is right. Casey ran as a pro life, conservative Democrat. Plus Casey had name identification as he had been governor of Pennsylvania. If Casey had run as a modern Democrat, the results would have been substantially different and certainly not a 17 point difference.

It is is fun to think of Obama running as a Casey clone against Santorum. I doubt that approach would fly.

Isn't it odd that "social conservatives" are always just now dominating the Republican party?

We've heard this for, what, 30 years in a row now?

Can you name one Senator in US History who went on to become a good President?

I'd argue Truman was a solid President with some troubling blind spots.

But the exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.

And while I don't take Santorum seriously, the race in 2006 in the era of the "Culture of Corruption" year (ironic, given how ethical the Dem Congress was and Dem Senate continues to be) was really bad for Republicans.

Saintorum is a REPUB whackjob. The American people [except Crack who fears Mormons] are tired of whackjobs no matter what party they hale from.

So is this the Mormonism is sane argument? Which part? The dreamed up by a convicted con man part? The Jesus will return to America part? The Indians are the lost tribe of Israel part? The abandon your family if they don't buy it part? The Book of Mormon is the true word part?

Please, find any aspect of Mormonism and let fly on what aspect isn't whackjob. I got an email to my Carnifex post that said this:

What Gary said was sweet but not the whole story. I was reading over at an ex-Mormon site, and LDS is not good for family life. All too often, the men are away from home all the time and miss their kids’ growing up; the women are overworked at home and assigned (unpaid) outside work for the church and feel perpetually depressed and unworthy. The church demands money money money; one biochemistry teacher recounted how, to teach at BYU, he was expected to pay them two thousand dollars a month.

Sounds totally sane - and something great to inflict on the country - to me.

Crack, I notice that everything you hold against Romney are generalizations about "Mormons", things that (according to you) apply to all Mormons. E.g., in your latest comment, Mormons are bad dads!

You never mention anything specifically about *Romney* himself, anything that Romney himself as an individual has said or done, that Romney himself as a man is responsible for. Other than being Mormon.

This is the politician who went to Puerto Rico and told the folks there to learn to speak English.What's really worrysome is that he is an idiot.

Why does that make him an idiot?

Are you ignorant that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States?

"In an interview this week, Santorum said Puerto Rico's citizens should be required to learn English as a condition for statehood.

Romney doesn't think it should be tied to statehood, but otherwise says the same thing:

"I would hope that young people would learn both languages, but particularly English so that as they trade throughout the country and participate in educational opportunities and economic opportunities throughout the country, that their English skills would make it even easier for them to travel and be effective in trade in the United States and, of course, abroad."

Not exactly - if Santorum wasn't an evangelical Christian, people might be willing to give more thought to what he's been saying. I'll back him for what's selling - what part of the phrase (which I've repeated many times) "there are more issues in this country than just the economy," doesn't anyone understand? Voting for the single issue of the economy is delusional. We need a president - not a business man. Someone's already said Romney doesn't care. I'll take someone who does.

And you would never vote for Romnney over Obama because, say what you will about Obama, at least he's not a Mormon.

1) Obama can't win. The fear of him is also delusional. He's got a record now. Donks make up 20% of the country - that's not enough to bring him back. Nobody else will go for it. Why should I take another cultist when I don't have to?

2) Electing a Mormon candidate is almost exactly like electing Obama, who I said, from the very beginning, is part of Oprah's NewAge cult. We need to stop giving cults power. The results should be obvious - Hope & Change - that meant we lose. It's all pretty words, and nice facades, hiding an ugly truth.

3) I love my country. I've proven I love it more than making black people happy or "making history" by voting for Obama. I also love it more than trying to prove I'm "open-minded" enough to elevate another cult to power. We MUST stop inflicting this on ourselves. They are a source of our problems. A major one when I look at their cumulative influence. I live in Utah and have seen it all. Mormons have that state - that's enough. Utah ain't no paradise and, if you live outside the cult, it's a total pain in the ass. Again - why inflict them on the country when we don't have to?

Cultism is a nasty cultural virus. It must be eradicated, not encouraged. And definitely not given power. We are marching ourselves over a cliff. And no, I will play no part in it.

There are larger issues here than the economy - and Romney isn't the only one who can win.

Crack, I notice that everything you hold against Romney are generalizations about "Mormons", things that (according to you) apply to all Mormons. E.g., in your latest comment, Mormons are bad dads!

You never mention anything specifically about *Romney* himself, anything that Romney himself as an individual has said or done, that Romney himself as a man is responsible for. Other than being Mormon.

Wrong. If Romney's so great, why did he tell his campaign to label anyone who questions his "religion" a bigot? You don't have to be a bigot - you just have to question Mormonism - and he'll slap the scarlet letter you. What a great use of power, huh? What else will he arbitrarily inflict on us?

Mormonism is the key to the man. He's "The White Horse" in Mormon parlance - which, like Mormon beliefs and ambitions, no one determined to elect him is familiar with. There's absolutely no way to separate him from the cult - but that's also the only way to get him elected.

Why aren't you concerned with that twisting/hiding of information, our culture and country, to suit him - as it did Obama - than whether that single man is getting a fair shake?

We are supposed to be looking out for our nation - not trying to appease anybody.

Why are you taking this path? Romney has always stated that his religious beliefs are personal and that he refuses to inflict them on the people he intends to lead.

I repeat;

is ordering his campaign to label questioners as bigots - whether it's true or not - a demonstration of his religious beliefs being personal and his refusal to inflict them on the people he intends to lead?

It's a lie. A bald-faced lie. And that single act - which is a demonstration of how he and his cult use power - proves it.

Me, I don't give a rip about him being Mormon. Other things bother me about Romney. Mainly, the man has no core principles and has at one point or another flip-flopped on every issue out there. And, having lived a long life, I remember Mittens's father well. George, who was famously brainwashed, also wanted to be president in the worst way, and I can't help but get the distinct vibe that for Mittens this is as much about redeeming his father as anything else. In that context, whatever it takes to win, scorched-earth against his opponents, versatile convictions, money, etc., whatever it takes. No thanks.

The Romney crowd has been playing the Mormon card since the beginning, that if you don't support him, you must be an anti-Mormon bigot.

Erick Erickson’s report of a meeting of prominent Christian conservatives with the various campaigns rings true --The Romney advocacy did more harm than good and I think the biggest story to come out of this event has to be both the hostility between evangelicals and Team Romney and the absolute endorsement for “Not Romney." . . .

The problem for Team Romney is that the distrust of Romney is overwhelmingly about his record and shiftiness, but the Romney campaign fundamentally believes it is about his religion. When Team Romney concluded the pitch (read from an iPad seemingly without a passionate delivery) with an admonishment to not be an anti-Mormon bigot, it was game over. Several of the attendees felt like the Romney campaign was almost implying that they’d win without evangelicals and would expect everyone to line up when it was over even without Romney reaching out.

Note to Team Romney: when you are in a room full of Christian leaders like those who were in that room and who have all long been attacked by the left as bigots, it is unwise — no, it is damn foolish — to accuse them of being anti-Mormon bigots, something too many Romney supporters have descended to as the only possible explanation for daring to not get on board with Romney.

Electing a Mormon candidate is almost exactly like electing Obama, who I said, from the very beginning, is part of Oprah's NewAge cult.

Well, that's that then. Honestly, I don't think there's anything either of us could say to persuade the other on this topic. But I think your response demonstrated my point. Your objection to Romney isn't about Romney specifically, Romney as an individual, but your objection to "a Mormon candidate". Any Mormon candidate. No matter what role their Mormonism plays in their lives.

I do wish for your sake that you could move out of Utah. Feeling as you do about Mormons, I don't think living in Utah can be good for your state of mind and happiness. I mean that sincerely and with goodwill.

A little intellectual honesty here please, yashu. You don't really care about religious prejudice and bigotry, except to have engaged in it yourself multiple times. So you are hardly the one to be pointing fingers here.

“Someone takes a shot at the governor’s faith, we put a scarlet letter on them, RB, religious bigot.”You mean "questioning" like this: Charles Blow of the NYTs: "Stick that in your magic underwear!" That's not bigoted?

No - bigotry is holding an attitude against something/someone based on ignorance. Mormon undergarments are a known fact.

And, as far as I know, mockery still isn't a crime in this country. The attempt to make it so is exactly the kind of problem I see coming from a Mormon candidacy. You will be reshaping our country into someplace less free - especially less free to speak. People outside the cult have to speak in hushed tones - or cloistered groups - in Utah. Openly questioning the cult is not allowed. Is that what you want for our nation? I ask you;

Is ordering his campaign to label questioners as bigots - whether it's true or not - a demonstration of his religious beliefs being personal and his refusal to inflict them on the people he intends to lead?

Can you name one Senator in US History who went on to become a good President?

I'd argue Truman was a solid President with some troubling blind spots.

Truman was VPOTUS under FDR, which probably prepped him a lot better.

PS Agree with your reservations about HST.

Fen said...

This is the politician who went to Puerto Rico and told the folks there to learn to speak English.What's really worrysome is that he is an idiot.

Why does that make him an idiot?

Are you ignorant that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States?

Once you get away from the tourist areas in PR, you might as well be in Guadalajara.

I've been leery of telling this story, but...

The Blonde slipped and broke her foot in San Juan and, since the tourist hospital was full up, she ended up in the one run as a teaching hospital (for stateside doctors) by the U of PR. The doctors were the only staff who spoke English and, apparently, only the well-to-do and those who work the tourist trade speak it generally.

So, yeah, they probably ought to teach it at least as a second language, but Santorum, ever the statist, made his case in the worst way possible.

PS The Blonde and I are now studying Espanol against the day we might need it.

Bender, where have I ever engaged in religious bigotry? I'd like you to find one example.

If you're referring to my problems with Santorum, you're very mistaken. I have *always* made it a point to specify that my problems with Santorum have nothing to do with his Catholicism, his religion or his faith or his church in general, but with Santorum *himself*. Things Santorum and Santorum alone is responsible for; Santorum's own words and actions, no one else's. Things not generalizable to his co-religionists. Things unique to Santorum as a politician and candidate for POTUS.

Pretty much the opposite of Crack's objection to Romney. I have no problem with electing "a Catholic" or "an evangelical" or "a Mormon" or "a social conservative". I may have a problem with electing a particular individual who happens to be a Catholic, evangelical, Mormon, or social conservative.

For POTUS, I prefer Romney as an individual, all things considered, over Santorum as an inidividual, all things considered.

You got a quote sourced to back that up? Because I really doubt it went down the way you are claiming.

Dude, you know me better than that: [link to blog]

This is the only thing I found there:

"A senior adviser explained the strategy of deflecting any discussion of Romney’s Mormon life to Politico: “Someone takes a shot at the governor’s faith, we put a scarlet letter on them, RB, religious bigot.”

Taking a cheap shots at someone's faith" is not the same thing as "questioning their religion"

Do you have anything better than that? Because it looks like you misunderstood.

bigotry is holding an attitude against something/someone based on ignorance. Mormon undergarments are a known fact.

Bender, a deeply religious and educated Catholic, is a bit blind to Saintorum's extremism. I am Catholic and just can't take the guy. My two biggest issues with him are:1- he went to DC, worked in Congress for 16 years while the fed govt became even more bloated and he has never left DC because he jumped on the Beltway gravy train. He epitomizes what is wrong with America.2- He seems like a buttinsky to me and so I believe he will expand govt which is the exact opposite of what we need.

I think your response demonstrated my point. Your objection to Romney isn't about Romney specifically, Romney as an individual, but your objection to "a Mormon candidate". Any Mormon candidate. No matter what role their Mormonism plays in their lives.

You, too, are ignoring my question about his ordering his campaign to smear others as bigots - is that a prudent use of power? I do wish for your sake that you could move out of Utah. Feeling as you do about Mormons, I don't think living in Utah can be good for your state of mind and happiness. I mean that sincerely and with goodwill.

I am writing you from Texas. I now have a residence here and one in Utah. My roommate in Utah was asking me, yesterday, when I'm coming back and I told him I don't know - I can sleep here. Cultism bothers me - as it should everyone - and not being around it does wonders for me.

You seem unconcerned about such things. Obviously you have no clue on the topic. On the child abuse, the killings, and the octopus-like crawl cults are making to further infiltrate society. I know you know Panda Express, the restaurant? It's part of the Landmark cult. So is Lululemon Athletica, the yoga clothing manufacturer. There are many others.

So what is Landmark? It's an offshoot of the est cult of the '70s, started by the founder's followers. (est's founder, Werner Ehrhard, is now banned from our country.) What was est? An outgrowth of Scientology. All three - Landmark, est, Scientology - have been busted for multiple crimes involving brainwashing, driving people insane, and murder.

See, yashu, that's what I do - I follow cults, connecting the dots and painting a more accurate picture of who and what they are. I have never found one i thought was cool - and for good reason:

The voters to whom he is appealing this year — mainly conservatives and evangelical Christians — are the same core voters he appealed to in Pennsylvania. But in 2006, they were a minority in the state’s general election; now they dominate the Republican primaries.

"A senior adviser explained the strategy of deflecting any discussion of Romney’s Mormon life to Politico: “Someone takes a shot at the governor’s faith, we put a scarlet letter on them, RB, religious bigot.”

Taking a cheap shots at someone's faith" is not the same thing as "questioning their religion"

Ha! You put the word "cheap" in there! Why, Fen? Why would you distort the quote?

You put the word "cheap" in there! Why, Fen? Why would you distort the quote?

I didn't distort the quote, those are my words.

Taking a cheap shot is what they mean when they say "Someone takes a shot at the governor’s faith". You don't see that?

You are distorting the truth for a cult.

Crazy talk. I've actually had to deal with a cult - rescued a college co-ed when I was 19 and almost got sucked in myself. "Mindfuck" barely covers what those charlatans do. So, I'm the last person here who would "distort the truth for a cult".

What I'm doing is trying to bring you out of your reflex anti-cultism that you're always harping on. You're engaging in baseless speculation and even twisting context and meaning to get Romney to fit into your "ordering his campaign to label questioners as bigots" paradigm.

Of the sixteen Senators who eventually became President, I personally would rate only Jackson (3 yrs) and Truman (10 yrs) as good, though Jackson's experience as a Major General was probably more formative than his brief time in the Senate.

You could possibly make a case than Benjamin Harrison was a pretty good President, and he also served in the Senate for six years.

As for candidates, Henry Clay (15 yrs in the Senate) might have made a good President, but we'll never know.

The key point is this: in general, legislators have entirely the wrong skill set to be effective executives.

Taking a cheap shot is what they mean when they say "Someone takes a shot at the governor’s faith". You don't see that?

No - because I don't assume I know "what they mean" - I go by their words, without helpfully filling in the blanks for them. The man said what he said.

I've actually had to deal with a cult - rescued a college co-ed when I was 19 and almost got sucked in myself. "Mindfuck" barely covers what those charlatans do. So, I'm the last person here who would "distort the truth for a cult".

Bullshit. I'm not so off the mark to say you show cult traits. Even after that experience, you still haven't wised up enough to oppose it. You are still backing a cult - and trying to get one of it's leaders into the White House.

Hardly the actions of someone well-versed on the danger.

What I'm doing is trying to bring you out of your reflex anti-cultism that you're always harping on. You're engaging in baseless speculation and even twisting context and meaning to get Romney to fit into your "ordering his campaign to label questioners as bigots" paradigm

Good luck with that. If you look above, I'm not the only one who's seen it - it's out there. It's true. I haven't added my assumptions, as you have, but documented what they're up to. But, for some reason, the man who claims to have been almost sucked into a cult - a "mindfuck" of one at that - opposes me. He wants them in power.

Even after that experience, you still haven't wised up enough to oppose it. You are still backing a cult - and trying to get one of it's leaders into the White House.

No. I don't see Mormonism as a Cult. Its a nascient sect of Christianity, just like Protestantism in in 1530 and Methodism was in 1729.

I know Mormons. I dated one and almost married her. I served alongside Mormons in the Marine Corps. None of the things you say about them resonate with my own direct experience.

Excuse me if I don't buy anything you say at this point.

You're being irrational, but I guess the feeling is mutual. Having read over your blog in the last 10 minutes, I now understand why you are so fiercely pushing back against religious bigots being labeled as bigots.

You do fascinating work on cults. I'm no expert on the topic, but I do find it interesting and compelling stuff (e.g. the Scientology/ est axis; hadn't heard of Landmark before).

I just don't consider Mormonism a cult; in all the relevant (to me) ways, it's a religion. Of course, what differentiates cult from religion can be a thorny philosophical question (not one to be settled here).

Particular Mormon communities (e.g. polygamous communities) may have cultlike aspects. But so do particular communities that ostensibly belong to other religions. Are there shady facts about and facets to the Mormon Church, especially historically? Sure: but there are shady facts and facets to the Catholic church too (cf. sex abuse scandal).

I don't hold all Mormons or all Catholics responsible for the sins of their Church.

I care about a candidate's religion insofar as it informs their public policy positions, e.g. their views on the necessity of regulating/ limiting freedoms and rights (e.g. freedom of expression, regulating the internet).

What Church they pray in and the words of those prayers, the tropes they couch their spirituality and sense of the divine in, the rigorous standards of sexual morality by which they live their own lives, are not my concern.

Obama's church was relevant because the preacher he chose to listen to for 20 years (the particular individual who was a personal friend and Obama's inspiration, according to his memoirs) was an extreme radical America-hating communist racist.

That makes a difference to one's conduct as POTUS, and that makes a difference to an American citizen under Obama's presidency. Belonging to a religion that believes Jesus will return to America (which for all we know Romney might understand in a metaphorical-spiritual way)? Doesn't bother me-- because it doesn't affect me negatively or at all as an American citizen in a hypothetical Romney presidency.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...'Can you name one Senator who was even a candidate for President who would have made a good President? You may include those who did not get the nomination.'

How does the fact that a POTUS may wear special underwear for religious reasons affect me as a citizen? Is this so different than wearing a cross on a chain under one's shirt?

It doesn't affect me at all. Heck, I wouldn't care if a POTUS liked to wear women's lingerie under his suit. Doesn't affect me, as long as it doesn't affect his performance as POTUS or determine his public policies in ways relevant to me.

I've never said Santorum was perfect, but then again, I have not endorsed him either.

It is true that he might be a bit too much "inside the Beltway," and if you really want to know, a BIG reason that he lost to Casey was because of his ill-advised public support for Specter, which alienated the pre-Tea Party crowd and led them to stay at home.

Still, we are told time and again from the Romney crowd that we can't expect perfection, to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. So, Santorum's flaws, while a concern, are not disqualifying.

But one thing that is NOT a flaw is his having principle and a backbone. One thing that is not a flaw is his standing up for what he believes. You may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands and that he believes what he says. That cannot be said for Romney. It cannot. Even his supporters give a wink and a nod to Romney's insistence that he is a "severe conservative," with socially conservatives views, knowing that he doesn't really mean it.

And one thing that is NOT a flaw are the merits of Santorum's unapologetic social conservativism. The left is waging, and has been waging, a WAR on family, society, and culture. Despite the desires of worms and other spineless Republicans, there is no appeasing, there is no chance at any "truce." There is only the left attacking and Republicans either running away or standing and fighting for what remains of society.

Whether it is Santorum or Palin or Gingrich or anyone else, social conservativism is not a flaw, it is essential.

Now, it may be true that the American people would prefer a Stalin or Ho Chi Minh to the "horrors" of someone who might occasionally dare say in public that our culture is a mess, from the destruction of families to our schools to our healthcare system to our charitable organizations to saying that maybe 55 million dead innocent human beings are enough. But if the people really do prefer Hell instead, then so be it.

I'm not so off the mark to say you show cult traits. Yah you are. It makes you look like an idiot to me.

So says the guy who almost joined a cult. Jesus, Dude, you are not listening to yourself.

I don't see Mormonism as a Cult. Its a nascient sect of Christianity, just like Protestantism in in 1530 and Methodism was in 1729.

So their founders were busted for fraud in the modern world? They were founded by illiterates who dictated their "beliefs" from a hat? They insisted on polygamy - even under pain of death - until they wanted a state and then backed off?

Dude, the word is "con men" and it's almost as old as America - except, back then, we ran them out of town with a shotgun, not tried to give them power. And, if you study the history of the Mormons, that's mostly what their past consists of.

I know Mormons. I dated one and almost married her. I served alongside Mormons in the Marine Corps. None of the things you say about them resonate with my own direct experience.

So have and do I, so why don't you know any of these things? Is everybody that knows more than you do lying? Or are you, Mr. I-Almost-Joined-A-Cult, the type not to look beyond the surface cults present? You almost fell for it once. Why can't you accept there's some part of your personality that makes you vulnerable? Must you insist on this self-imagery that contradicts the very facts you've laid out yourself? Face it - you're not a good judge of this subject matter.

You're being irrational,...

And you almost joined a cult. I'd say, since I've never been so much as tempted, I'm much more rational than you'll ever hope to be.

What? As a 19 year old I endured 48 hours of sleep deprivation and brainwashing to get my best friend out of a cult. And they only reason I shared that with you is so you would understand that, having been directly victimized by a cult, I feel the same way you do about cults. And in response, you assume you know the fortitude of my character? Hell Crack, you're so mixed up spiritually, you wouldn't have made it past the first hour. Maybe that's why you have such an irrational fear and obession about cults.

So you're a fucking idiot. And you're more evangelical as an athiest than the worst of the proselytizers.

Go back to ridiculing the kosher practices Jews, conflating Christianity with cults, and pretending you're not just another lost religious bigot.

pm317: What, a candidate should never get in a little poolside nap? I suppose Robotman wouldn't do a thing like that, but the idea that a candidate can't relax a little is stupid. It's not like he left the campaign trail for a Mediterranean cruise.

As for the idea that US Senators make lousy presidents, it's worth remembering that Romney's first choice was to be a US Senator.